Pike County massacre testimony; Nikolas Cruz’s defense rests; R. Kelly conviction — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Dina Doll joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss testimony in the murder trial following the Pike County massacre, the additional defamation suit facing Alex Jones in Connecticut, the defense unexpectedly resting its case in Nikolas Cruz’s death penalty hearing, and R. Kelly’s most recent convictions.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:00:11]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily’s The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country.
I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based here in Los Angeles and previously in LA County Prosecutor for nearly a decade. We are recording this on Friday, September 16th, 2022.
In this week’s episodes, we will be discussing testimony beginning in the infamous Pike County massacre that left eight family members dead. Also, Alex Jones’ defamation trial continues in Connecticut, where Jones could face substantial damages. Plus, Nicholas Cruz's defense team suddenly rest their case out of nowhere in the Parkland shooter’s death penalty hearing. And finally, R Kelly’s conviction in a Chicago federal court on charges of child pornography and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity.
Today, we are joined by Dina Doll, a corporate transactional attorney, trial consultant, mediator, and legal analyst on the Law and Crime Network.
Dina, welcome.
Dina Doll:
[0:01:12]
Thanks for having me.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:13]
You've been on the show before. And for listeners who are not familiar with you, could you give us a little bit about your background in your current practice.
Dina Doll:
[0:01:19]
Sure. So, I'm based here in LA along with you. And I started my career at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and then co-founded the law firm the Amir & Eley, my husband and I. And I got a chance to take time off to be with my kids and raise my kids.
And I do trial consultants now. So that way, I do still have time for them. And I'm a legal analyst. I'm on a variety of different media and I love being able to communicate about the law. My background before law school was actually journalism, so it's kind of combining my two loves there.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:53]
Oh, fantastic. And I know you follow these cases closely. So, we're really interested to hear your hot takes on some of these things.
So, let's jump right in. We're talking about, going first to Cincinnati, Ohio. The murder trial of George Wagner the fourth, continues for the execution style slayings that left eight dead and shocked a rural Ohio community in 2016.
Wagner faces eight counts of aggravated murder, along with other counts for his part in the massacre that left multiple members of the Rhoden family dead. Jake Wagner, George Billy Wagner the third, Angela Wagner and George Wagner the fourth were all charged in the murders.
George’s younger brother, Jake and mother Angela pled guilty for their role in the killings and are expected to testify against George in this trial. The majority of the victims were shot multiple times, with the Wagners allegedly using homemade silencers to kill the victims in their sleep. Prosecutors alleged the killings were motivated by a custody battle, this is just so tragic to me, over the daughter of Jake Wagner and Hannah Rhoden, with Rhoden refusing to sign papers that would allow shared custody of the couple's daughter.
Pike County Court Judge Randy Deering is allowing witnesses to choose, and this is interesting if they want their testimony, to be filmed prior to testifying. Reportedly, most of the witnesses have opted out of being filmed, including the Pike County Sheriff Tracy Evans, along with two of his deputies.
So, Dina, let's talk about this. First of all, I've never seen this type of situation before where the judge says I'm going to allow recording, but I'm also going to allow each witness to decide on their own whether or not they want to opt out of it. And my understanding is they can opt out. They could say “Well, I only want to be audio recorded” or “I will allow myself to be both video and audio recorded” or not at all.
And reporters are still inside the courtroom to tell us what's going on but what do you make of this kind of bizarre decision on the judge’s part? How do you think that's affecting the trial?
Dina Doll:
[0:03:51]
I mean, I think you're right, it is bizarre. It sounds like it's because of the state law there, which specifically says witnesses can opt out. And who knows, maybe more states will kind of come up with a similar law.
But the fact is, the reason why we're even allowed to have cameras in the courtroom, as you know, our proceedings are public. The idea is that our courtrooms are public so people can know what our justice system is. And actually, it's for the benefit of the defendant. That's why we have a public system is because that way we have accountability if somebody is going to have a fair trial.
So, I think picking and choosing, I mean, although they themselves are picking and choosing, but having a trial televised where only certain witnesses come, I don't know if that necessarily helps that goal of people seeing the trial. Because, quite frankly, they're not seeing all of the trial.
And let's say for instance, all of the prosecutor witnesses were saying they want to be on trial but none of the defense witnesses. It's not necessarily happening that way. But let's say it does. You know, the public may come away with a very different understanding of that trial because of this kind of cherry picking of witnesses.
So, although I know it's what if she was able to do this because of the state law, I think it kind of like circumvents the whole purpose of having cameras in the courtroom.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:05:09]
I agree with you. I think that we should have a push towards more of this transparency, towards more cameras in the courtroom. And I realize that that does have an effect on trials, obviously the amount of kind of – I've experienced this myself. The amount of kind of publicity that you put on a case can change the whole dynamic of it. But I think it's important for our overall, like you said, trust to the system and an understanding of transparency of what's going on.
For instance, one thing that has always frustrated me is the federal system doesn't allow cameras at all. And so, you get these trials and the only way that we really understand what's going on with him is through, you know, the court reporters and then these courtroom sketches of what's taking place.
And it does lead to a people, I think the public by and large kind of having a little distrust of what is what's happening and is what's being told to me actually taking place. I'm wondering could they have solved that here by just saying, listen, if you don't want to be on camera, you don't have to be on camera? The cameras are going to still be there, but they may not be recording you.
Dina Doll:
[0:06:13]
Yeah. So, I think that's probably essentially what is happening if they probably turn them on and off, you know, when these certain witnesses come up. And, you know, it's interesting. Like we talked – like I was saying, the purpose of the public is for the defendant.
And, you know, OJ Simpson, you know, is the original TV trial and he was acquitted. If he hadn't been acquitted, I think we may have seen a major shift away from cameras in the courtroom. But it was kind of that first real experiment and he was acquitted. And so that maybe continued this idea of cameras in the courtroom.
And then we see Kyle Rittenhouse, hugely watched case. He was also acquitted. So, the idea is really can a defendant get a fair trial in the courtroom and we've seen over and over again with that, yes, they still can get it.
And it's, I just think too, I mean, you know, the Johnny Depp trial was also a not criminal, but it was one of the most watched trials again in a while. And I got so many really interesting legal questions from that people. We’re really, you know, wanting to have intricacies of hearsay.
And all these rules that why shouldn't people be more educated about our legal system? So, I'm a huge fan of it. And I think here especially, people were really upset about the sheriff's not being willing to be on the camera because he is a public figure, he does public press conferences, I think his testimony was really about logistics.
So, the fact that he didn't want to be on camera, I think that's a bad decision on his part because the optics looked really bad.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:07:52]
Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up because that was going to be my next question to you. I don't understand it. I don't understand why he did it, but I feel like of all the people that should be the most transparent, it would be law enforcement because, to your point, right, is this should be kind of benefiting us as a society to understand that this is transparent and what's taking place is not, you know, nobody’s being railroaded here.
What about that, with the law enforcement in particular, choosing not to be recorded. And the funny thing about it is there's still reporters, so they're still going to report on what was taking place. But there's something weird about the fact that you're like, I don't – I know that this is going to be public, but I don't want to be recorded in what I'm saying in court.
Dina Doll:
[0:08:39]
Yeah. To me, that is the worst, because you could see maybe some of the other witnesses, especially a murder trial, there might be some fear involved or, you know, they don't want to have people, you know threaten them or something like that. But a law enforcement in particular, I think it's a little bit scary to think about it because of this idea that we -- this is considered a check on our system. The reason why it's public is it's a check on our system, so still have law enforcement.
Well, nowadays they’re recorded all the time, right. I mean with body cam, cameras and all that kind of stuff, even if the sheriff maybe wasn't in the field, we really want transparency. And so for them to say we're willing to testify really against this defendant, right? We’re willing to put this person away for jail for the rest of their life but, you know, we don't want the public to see us doing it. That just looks really bad. And I don't actually see to your point the purpose, because it's all getting transcribed anyway. So that to me is a really bad just PR decision if nothing else.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:09:42]
Yeah. It's fuel for conspiracy theorists, right? We're in a situation where you don't need it, you're just adding fuel to that fire that people are already kind of skeptical of law enforcement and the judicial system to begin with.
Last question on this. And it hasn't happened yet, so I'm asking you to kind of speculate a little bit but we anticipate to hear from family members of the defendant, perhaps his brother, even his mother. They both testified guilty. And the idea that they would testify, what do you – what effect do you think that will have on the trial?
Dina Doll:
[0:10:14]
You know, to have family members testify against the defendant, it’s very big really, because there's going to be a lot of evidence against it, right? And prosecution is not going to bring a case unless they have really a strong amount of evidence. And usually, the one thing a defendant can show is people going up on the stand and saying, oh, this is not somebody who would do something like that, like a family member.
And in this case, it's the opposite. It's the family member saying no, he did do this, he was a part of it. Especially his mother, you know, people would think, what mother would lie about their son? If anything, you would think a mother would lie about the reverse. So, I think that's going to be very compelling to the jury.
It istrue though that the brother who's testifying again him, you know, he was the one that shot five people, right? He's already kind of related to that. Whether or not the defense can say, really this is just so self-serving on his part, the defendant didn't do any of the shootings. And of course, they want to put the blame on him. Of course, they wanted to avoid the death sentence.
You know, you may not be able to go into necessarily all of that, but I think that is the defense’s best hope. But it's certainly very hard to argue that both the mother and the son are just completely, you know, making this up.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:11:33]
Yeah, I agree with you. Yeah. I mean that is usually the way the defense would handle something like this is to say, well, didn't you get some sort of sweetheart deal? And isn't that why you're testifying? In fact, aren't you the one who's mostly responsible?
But that all dynamic changes when you've got family members willing to testify against someone. So, that will be very interesting if it does happen. We expect it to happen and so we'll keep a close watch on this case.
Let's turn to Waterbury, Connecticut, where Alex Jones second trial of three lawsuits continues in Connecticut, weeks after he was ordered to pay nearly $50 million to families of the Sandy Hook massacre. Jones is accused of calling the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting a hoax. The attack left twenty children and six educators dead.
Theplaintiffs argued that Jones is rallying cry, asking his viewers to “investigate” the shooting, led to cyberstalking, harassment and even threats to the families of the victims of the shooting. Jones was already found liable for defamation both in Texas and now in Connecticut, with the jury here only set to decide how much he will pay in damages.
In August, a Texas jury ordered Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, to pay Sandy Hook’s parents, Neil Heslin and Scarlet Lewis, $4.1 million in compensatory damages, but get this $45.3 million in punitive damages. However, Texas has a cap of $750,000 per count of non-economic punitive damages. The plaintiffs in that case are arguing that the cap doesn't apply, so we'll see how that all plays out.
Meanwhile, Jones’ company has filed for bankruptcy, though he testified during his trial in Texas that Infowars makes nearly 80 million a year in annual revenue. While the plaintiffs’ accounting expert has reported Jones and his companies could be worth as much as 270 million.
A key distinction between the two cases could be the limits placed on punitive damages in Connecticut. Connecticut normally has stringent caps on punitive damages. However, the plaintiffs also brought a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act which would remove the cap.
Okay. First question here, Dina, is the case, this case, rather than Texas is being tried 20 miles away from where the shooting occurred, how do you think that affects the jurors award in this case if they do have one? Being – them being so much a part of that community of where this tragedy took place.
Dina Doll:
[0:14:02]
We do try and jury selection to eliminate jurors who you know are so biased, right, because they were impacted. And so, there are going to be jury or there were jury questions to try to eliminate those who maybe can't be impartial in the case.
But to your point, I mean this was so close to when this happened and they – it's almost impossible for them not to have felt it in a way that somebody across the country wouldn't have. Although this was really a national story and I think a lot of people in the country would say that they felt impacted by it.
But I do think that they probably sympathize because they went through with the families, they may have actually heard more about the harassment than the rest of us did. You know, we all heard about the event. I didn't actually realize that the families were getting harassed until these lawsuits came up.
But those people who lived nearby, they may have, you know, heard the stories. I think some of the harassment happened at like, you know, the 10K race fundraiser, you know. So, that that may have been more well known in the community. And so, to that extent, it might be a little bit easier for them to prove the damages because they may have had some knowledge about that.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:15:21]
Yeah. No, I agree with you. There is something about it taking place just even geographically closer, even if it's not that it affected your personal life or those of your friends. But I remember – I mean, like you said, Sandy Hook, the entire nation felt this and experienced it.
But you remember the tragic kind of San Bernardino shootings that we had out here several years ago? You know, San Bernardino is not what I would call all that close to Los Angeles, but it is still in California and geographically closer to us. And I do feel like we, as residents of Southern California, maybe paid more close attention, felt the impact a little bit more. And I wonder if those reverberations are going to affect this jury and we're going to find out soon enough when they do get an award here.
Something I'd like you to help us to understand is that this is again another case where liability is not an issue. So, he's already been kind of defaulted as far as liability. So, the jurors going in here are already being told you don't have to decide whether or not defamation took place. You're only here to decide damages, if any, that should be awarded.
I guess my questions are, first, have you ever dealt with something like that? And then two, what – I wonder how does that affect a jury going in when it's like they already know this person is liable? You know, this person has done what they're accused of doing. Now, we're just trying to decide how to compensate the families and how to perhaps even punish the defendant in this case. What are your thoughts?
Dina Doll:
[0:16:55]
Well, I think it is unusual. I mean, sometimes clients do default on a judgment for strategic reasons depending on kind of how frivolous the case is. Is it going to cost more to defend? But a situation like this, it's actually pretty shocking he defaulted because of how much he is at risk financially.
But you know the fact of the matter is he probably couldn't prove the truth of that statement so what's the point of defending it at that point. So, it makes sense to that end, because I think his lies were so obvious, so to speak.
And then in terms of how the jury is going to affect, you know, time and time again, I am always so impressed with our jury system. I think jurors do an excellent job of really narrowing down to the exact legal issue at, you know, in question. And I think they're going to do a good job of just looking at the damages because sure, somebody can be liable for something. But if they weren't damaged and you can't prove that damage, you still don't get very much money.
So, I think that they will have actually quite enough to look at just with respect to damages. And I don't think it's going to really affect them that he was already kind of defaulted and liable in that respect.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:18:09]
Interesting. Interesting. And to your point, what they have heard so far for several days now has been a representative of Jones’s company that talked about and one of the things I thought was interesting was she was testifying as far as how traffic was driven, and I'm talking about Internet traffic, was driven to the website, how they tracked it, in other words, what they knew was getting attention and what wasn't and then how they monetized off of that.
And I believe what they're trying to do is to connect the dots here is that they realized or someone, Jones himself perhaps, realized that the Sandy Hook and all of these salacious comments he was making about that horrible shooting was getting a lot of attention which then turned into a lot of money. And therefore, the argument being from the plaintiffs, you need to punish them for that. What do you think that effect of that kind of testimony will have on the jurors in this case?
Dina Doll:
[0:19:13]
This is what I thought was so fascinating about this Connecticut case, and why it's so important, even more so than the Texas one is because, as you said, the Texas one has a cap on punitive. But under the Connecticut, this unfair Trade Practices Act, there is no cap. So, this case could truly make him like insolvent beyond bankruptcy and reorganization like this could take away all of his money.
And the interesting thing is, it's possible that they may have had a hard time proving liability under the Unfair Trade Practices Act in addition to defamation but they're past that point. So now it's, as you said, just damages.
And the question is, is did he sell more merchandise when he told these lies? That's really the question. And then the how many more pieces of merchandise. And the judge, because he's already you know, still not cooperating and some of these you know, not discovery at this point, but he was still not forthcoming in the information.
You know they were asking for certain data, the plaintiffs and he still wasn't giving it this. And the judge said that his attorneys could not argue that he did not profit at all from these statements. That's pretty big. She already made that ruling.
So now it's just a matter of you know how much basically did he profit?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:20:38]
Yeah, yeah.
Dina Doll:
[0:20:39]
And it's probably not going to be that hard for them to show this connection between, as you say, now this was very salacious. I mean, this was a national tragedy and then him saying these really shocking things, I'm sure did move traffic. And not only they're going to have the compensatory, theactual damages to that but this is now where the punitive is going to come in is to say what you did was so egregious, we want to make it that you or no one else wants to ever do this again. And that punitive can be as high as they want it to be because there is no cap, and that's why this case is very interesting.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:21:18]
I agree with you. I think I was not shocked with the number that came out of Texas and I wouldn't be shocked if we got a number that high or higher here in Connecticut.
And one thing that was surprising to me though was, I mean I had heard of Infowars before all of this. I think everybody always, you know, heard of Alex Jones, kind of this nut jump on the, you know, the darker corners of the Internet.
But this was an enterprise of a company, $80 million a year in revenue that they were generating and if they're doing that on the backs of lies, that they know our lives, that are hurting people, that people who have already suffered unimaginable suffering from what they've gone through with their kids, and now they're being attacked by his, you know, cabal of crazies on the Internet, I think you, I think you're right, I think we could see some pretty big numbers out of this case.
Let's turn to a Fort Lauderdale, Florida where the defense has abruptly rested their case in Nicholas Cruz’ sentencing hearing for the Parkland school shooting. After planning to call around 80 witnesses to testify in Cruz’ defense, his lawyers unexpectedly rested their case Wednesday morning after calling a mere 25 witnesses.
Cruz pled guilty in October of last year to 17 counts of first-degree murder for the 14 students and three staff members killed in the 2018 shooting. The move left prosecutors reeling and unable to deliver their rebuttal. The trial is slated to resume on September 27.
Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Scherer was outraged, calling the defense’s behavior “the most uncalled for, unprofessional way to try a case”. Jurors were outside the courtroom, waiting to enter when the defense rested their case, prompting Scherer to add – to have 25 people marched into court and be waiting as if it's some kind of a game.
I have never experienced such a level of unprofessionalism in my career. We have some video of the judge’s remarks that we're going to play for you right now. They're remarkable, so let's take a look at those.
Judge Elizabeth Scherer:
[0:23:19]
I just want to say, this is the most uncalled for, unprofessional way to try the case. You all knew about this. And even if you didn't make your decision till this morning to have 22 people plus all of this stuff and every train march into court be waiting as if it's some kind of game. Now, I have to send them home. The state’s not ready. They're not going to have a witness ready. We have another day wasted. Honestly, I have never experienced a level of unprofessionalism in my career. It's unbelievable.
Female:
[0:24:00]
So, Judge, we had any pre-trial matters, you asked us to be here at 9:15, we were here at 9:15 to discuss pre-trial matters. I have been practicing in this county for –
Judge Elizabeth Scherer:
[0:24:10]
You know what, I don’t want to hear it.
Female:
[0:24:11]
Well, Judge, you're insulting me on the record in front of my client and I believe that I should be able to --
Judge Elizabeth Scherer:
[0:24:15]
Okay. You can do that later. You can put – make your record. You've been insulting me the entire trial. So, blatantly taking your headphones off, arguing with me, storming out, coming late intentionally, if you don't like my rulings. So quite frankly, this has been long overdue. So please be seated, you can receive the evidence. I will receive the evidence and then you can put whatever you want on the record at the end.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:41]
Dina, that was pretty shocking stuff there. My first question for you, I guess, is I know you've got experience in courtrooms. Have you ever experienced something like this and experienced it especially true in a case that has such kind of media attention with, you know, cameras in the courtroom daily. What are your thoughts?
Dina Doll:
[0:25:00]
Well, we have a variety of different types of judges, right? I mean, different judges have different personalities and I have certainly seen a judge who’s very harsh for maybe a lot less reason throughout trials, right? That happens all the time. We don't always have ways that we see thinker or judges on the bench.
I think the judge here, though had ample reason to be upset. And I was actually more taken with the response of the attorney because that attorney fired back in a way that we don't often see. I mean at the end of the day this is the judge’s courtroom. The judge can do whatever they want. And as an attorney, you want to be respectful at all times.
And if I'm getting dressed down by a judge, you know, I'm going to take it basically, right. And so, I was a little bit surprised about the reaction of that attorney, to be quite honest.
So, you know, I think that every little snippet that the public gets to see that it's not always like, you know what you think on Law and Order or whatever, you know, it's not always goes by the book. And there’s personalities involved, you know, we are just people. Lawyers are people. Judges are people. But I thought that the back and forth was more unusual. Usually, the lawyer kind of takes it a little bit more.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:26:22]
Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. I mean, if you've ever done a trial and it's been a heated trial and it's gone on for a while, this kind of exchanges are going to happen. You know, people are going to lose their tempers, people are getting tired. One thing I know for sure with judges is something that they're primarily concerned with are the jury. And are they wasting these people’s time? They hate to have the jury sitting back there waiting.
And you know, for the defense, I think that was what was most offensive to the judge is the defense knew they were going to rest their case. Why didn't they tell everybody ahead of time? Why did they, you know, bring everybody into court, including having the jurors all show up when they knew they weren't going to do anything that day?
And I think that's why it bothered the judge the most. But it is, I think, a little shocking, probably to a harsh of a word, but it was a little funny to me because this judge knows that she's on camera too, everybody’s watching this. This isn't – you know, I've done trials in an empty courtroom and nobody’s watching it, and nobody cares, and the judge can lay into you, and you are kind of like whatever. But this is in front of the entire country essentially. And for her to kind of lay into the attorneys like that and like you said for the attorneys to kind of fire back was at least good spectacle sport for everybody watching it.
But I guess my other question is why did the defense do this? Do you think this was on purpose? Was this a strategy? Are they trying to crop catch the prosecution off guard and did it backfire on them? What were your thoughts?
Dina Doll:
[0:27:56]
It has to be a strategy I would think because it's so different. You know, the difference between 25 witnesses, which they did, and 80, which they said they were going to do. I mean, we're not even talking about it being a close number.
And it's possible they thought, you know, the rest of the witnesses that we are going to give aren't going to add anything new. Maybe they're going to supplement it, but there may be just extra. And strategically, we would be better off putting the prosecution kind of off their game plan and we would adding additional witnesses who aren't going to add much to our case.
I mean, that's the only thing I think that makes sense. Because this is a capital case here, right? They have their client whether or not it's going to be put to death, you would think the defense would be very smart about their strategy. And if they thought these other witnesses could add more to their case, they would have done that rather than trying to kind of derail the prosecution's case.
But the fact that they chose, I think they really chose it with a conscious decision to derail the prosecution's case. And they must have done it because they didn't think these other witnesses were going to add anything done important, but they knew that. They would have known that for a long time at this point.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:08]
Yeah, I agree with you that it seems like it was definitely premeditated. If they thought they were going to do this, the kind of professional way to handle it is and say listen Your Honor, we've sat down as a team strategically, we've decided we're going to rest our case early and give the court and everybody else a heads up. But they did want kind of – it seemed like they kind of wanted this gotcha moment, but it's like for what, real short-term gain?
I mean, the prosecution is going to put their case together. The judge gave them the time. It's not like the prosecution had to rest their case early or something like that because they don't have any witnesses waiting in the hallway. So, it didn't really do anything other than, you know, essentially piss off the judge and everybody else in the courtroom for pulling this kind of shenanigans. It was a – it’s a funny move to me.
And I always wonder, because this whole case we know is about what are they trying to, what issues are they trying to set up on appeal? If he is given the death penalty, it's going to go to an appeal. And is this another little wrinkle that they've thrown in there hoping to get an appellate issue out of it and we will see.
I know that, Dina, you've been following this case closely. Has your opinion changed at all? I know that I felt the prosecution had an incredibly strong case when they were putting their case on. I took a couple of steps back. I don't know if it changed my mind when the defense put their case on. But what are your thoughts have been?
Dina Doll:
[0:30:31]
You know, this is just such an egregious crime. And you can argue whether or not you believe in a death penalty. But if you're in Florida and the death penalty exists, you have to question what other crimes would it exist for other than this one? And the prosecution, I think, really showed this is the type of case you give the death penalty for.
It is sad that he may have been born with like fetal alcohol syndrome, you know, with the duck defense was saying, did he ever have a chance in life? But the fact of the matter is a lot of people are born in really poor difficult circumstances, and they don't go and commit mass crimes.
So, I don't know if they really did enough to combat the kind of egregiousness of the crime. It is interesting though, because I know there was a lot of discussion about like gosh, his family members have to sit and watch all of this. You know, why the prosecution necessarily going through all the gruesome details. A lot of people were kind of reacting to that, you know, on social media or interacting with me about it.
And we just talked about the Sandy Hook case. And for me, I thought it was interesting that these cases were kind of happening at the same time because I thought, yes, their benefit here is he going to get capital punishment or not?
But the other benefit is all of this is now part of the public record and those families will never have anybody say to them that this didn't happen. And I think there is like, again, like this public interest and having a crime like – a lot of these times if this happens that perpetrator is also killed and so there is no case. This is one of the few ones I can think of where there is an ability to go back and really put on the record and maybe just make it known to their families and to the world, exactly what happened.
And I hope as part of that was for the families to have to sit through this, I hope they felt that kind of reckoning that I think happened that doesn't always happen in these cases. And hopefully they won't ever have anybody question whether or not – how can you question that happen now after all of this. So, to that, I thought that was interesting that was happening at the same time.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:32:43]
No. I agree with you. That's something I had not thought of. But it maybe perhaps there was some sort of catharsis that came out of this for the family members who have had their moment to have the world hear the kind of suffering that they've gone through and what their family has experienced.
One point I wanted to kind of touch one that you made, I agree with you that if you know, putting aside are, we could have a whole podcast on whether or not this country should have a death penalty or not. But putting that all aside, if there is any type of crime that would qualify for the greatest penalty that we have in this country, it would be this type of a crime.
And something important to keep in mind is that the jurors who are sitting in this jury are not – they do not run the spectrum of political thought on the death penalty. In other words, they've all been what's called death penalty qualified, meaning they've been asked during voir dire very specific questions on if you feel the death penalty is appropriate, would you vote in favor of it? And they've all been asked.
And I sat through these types of voir dires before when I was in the DA’s office. And you'll come down to a juror and you'll say, listen, you're sitting back there and there's 12 of you, and they needed a unanimous verdict to say that the death penalty is going to be enforced in this case.
And let's say you've seen all eleven of your co-jurors say yes on the death penalty. And now it comes down to you, the 12th juror. And you know that your vote could send this person to the death chamber or could put them in prison for the rest of their life. And it's up to you. But you feel that this is worthy of it, would you be able to make that vote?
And it's a chilling kind of moment to hear these people kind of really search their soul to answer that question. But what we do know is that everybody who's sitting on this juror has been able to say that yes, they could do that if it was they were called upon to do it.
So, I agree with you in that if the prosecution has presented this case to them as you said that you could do this, and this is absolutely the type of case where it should be done, I think that the defense in this case has a very difficult road ahead of them. And we will see how this all plays out, I guess sooner rather than what we were expecting now that we're not going to hear from another 40 something odd witnesses from the defense. So, we'll continue to watch it.
Finally, out of Chicago, Illinois, Robert Sylvester Kelly, R Kelly, was found guilty of six counts by a federal jury in the R&B singer’s hometown, including charges of production of child pornography and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. Kelly was acquitted on an additional seven counts which included conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy to receive child pornography.
Two co-defendants in the trial, Kelly’s former business manager Derrel McDavid and Kelly’s former assistant Milton Brown, were acquitted on all charges. The pair were accused of co-conspiring with Kelly to rig the outcome of a previous criminal trial in 2008, which allegedly included video of Kelly sexually abusing a minor.
Kelly was previously convicted on federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges in New York earlier. He is currently serving a 30-year prison sentence for those charges.
Okay. First off, Dina, just what were your reaction to this? Did this verdict surprise you at all?
Dina Doll:
[0:36:16]
It didn’t. He had – although this isa separate crime, I think that, you know, we're in a different era, right? Post Me Too. I think jurors are more willing to believe. And although they tried to convict, you know, go to trial on this before, the victim didn't testify, right. Or she said to the grand jury that it didn't happen, but she was willing to testify.
I think with the video and the victim willing to testify, you had a completely different case. So, I was not surprised that he got convicted here.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:36:47]
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because the prosecutors centered their case, in this case, around a star witness identified only by the pseudonym Jane, who identified herself as the person in a 26-minute video tape that allegedly showed Kelly performing sex acts with an underage girl.
In her emotional testimony, Jane, who's now 37 years old, said that the singer began having sex with her when she was just 15 and he was in his 30s and continued to do so, “hundreds of times” before she turned 18.
You highlighted this as the kind of the thing that moved the needle with this kind of powerful testimony and videotaped to back it up and corroborate it. Do you think a conviction was all but inevitable in this case?
Dina Doll:
[0:36:47]
I do. And especially because of the time we're in, you know, people are willing to believe that maybe there, once idol, could have done something bad. I think in the past celebrity was kind of a shield. We’re no longer in that space. And once you've taken away that kind of celebrity shield, the facts of the victim and the video tape would certainly have been enough to convict a regular person, and so why not him also?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:37:58]
Yeah, yeah. And I'm glad you brought that up. We're talking about the kind of cultural reckoning that we’ve had over the past few years from – essentially, the world has changed to some extent from 2008 when that first trial took place to 2022 with this trial, with that Me Too Movement that you've referenced a couple of times.
What do you think this means as far as people feeling comfortable to accuse people in power and testify against people in power and hold people in power accountable?
Dina Doll:
[0:38:31]
Hopefully, we've gotten to the point where they are treated as if you were not in power. I mean, somebody in power shouldn't have more accusations, false accusations against them shouldn't be convicted more, but they should be treated just like everybody else, you know? If there's evidence, get strong evidence against you, you should be able to be convicted just like the neighbor who nobody knows their name.
And I think there was a big disconnect before. People didn't want to believe that the person they saw on a movie or the person they listen to the songs could have done these awful things, but I think they should be treated just like anyone else. And actually, the jury in this case, I think we're going to talk about that, but didn’t treat him, I think, like everyone else because they didn't convict him on all of the charges.
I think they were very discerning about that and they convicted him on this witness who they thought was very strong and the video tape that was very strong. So, I think that in that respect, we could see that he got a fair trial. That's what you want. You want the celebrity to get a fair trial like the neighbor to get the fair trial. Nobody to be treated worse or better than the other.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:39:34]
It's a really, really excellent point is that you cannot say that this was just a juror’s kind of knee jerk reaction to a cultural movement when they were able to discern enough to find him guilty of some things, find him guilty of – not guilty of other things, to find his co-conspirators not guilty.
So, they obviously went through the evidence. They came back fairly quickly after a long trial. It was only a couple of days of deliberation but that does show some thoughtfulness that they put into it.
It reminds me it's similar, but very different but another case, you know, with the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case that we talked about, what does that mean as far as the cultural movement? Because, you know, here they found that someone who had accused a person of power and celebrity of really atrocious things, they found that that person wasn't being truthful. But at the same time that was a mixed bag verdict as well because they found him liable for some defamation against her in some comments that he made.
And I thought – and I'd like to hear your thoughts, is that also show kind of discernment on the part of the jurors that these cases are not really just, like I said, knee jerk reactions, but it really is kind of us coming to the idea that people need to be held accountable no matter who they are, and that doesn't necessarily mean throwing the book at them.
Dina Doll:
[0:40:51]
Exactly. And I think this kind of goes to my point, which I love juries, right? I mean people – I also sometimes get feedback of how can tall people who don't know the law decide these things? Like why do we do that? Shouldn't they be, you know, lawyers, or maybe even the Judge.
But again and again, I find them to be so impressive in deciding you know the facts. That's what they're deciding. They're deciding the facts, they're applying the law. They're not deciding the law, right. The judge is going to decide what law they apply, but they're deciding the facts. And every regular person can decide the facts.
And I think in that Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, they were discerning. They said, okay, every statement that had any, any – every statement that said either abuse or sexual allegation or sexual violence were all lies. But the one statement that didn't include abuse or sexual, you know, any of those kind of key abuse words, that one went to Johnny Depp.
That was super interesting. I didn't think they were going to be quite as focused on those facts as they were and they were. And I think with the R Kelly case, they didn't believe the one witness whose R Kelly's defense attorney said, hey, this witness, you know, on the stand since she was 16, but there's a prior statement where she said she was 17 at the time. And 17 is legal age, you know, in Chicago.
And the lawyer did a great job of pointing out the inconsistent statement and the jury said, hey, you know if you're going to be inconsistent, we're not going to believe you. Your credibility is now an issue which is very reasonable for the jury to have said and they acquitted him on that charge.
So, I just think that jurors are great at, like, narrowing down those kinds of issues and looking at the facts and they did it here as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:42:37]
Yeah, I agree with you. Really, really interesting thoughts and I loved hearing what you had to -- what was going on in your brain thinking about these cases.
Dina, we appreciate having you on again, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Dina Doll:
[0:42:53]
They can follow me on social media. My handle is @askdinadoll, pretty much across every platform, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:43:03]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at JoshuaRitterESQ. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts, and we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDsidebar. And thank you for joining us at The True Crime Daily Sidebar.
